2C:12-1b(5)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)[1] Jury charge

Countof this indictment charges the defendant with aggravated assault.

(Read appropriate count of indictment).

The defendant is accused of violating a law that provides in pertinent part:

A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he . . . (n)egligently causes bodily injury to . . . with a deadly weapon . . . to . . . (a)ny law enforcement officer acting in the performance of (his/her) duties while in uniform or exhibiting evidence of (his/her) authority or because of (his/her) status as a law enforcement officer.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1.that the defendant negligently caused bodily injury(insert name of victim);

2.that the defendant caused bodily injury with a deadly weapon;

3.that(insert name of victim)was a law-enforcement officer; and

4a.that the defendant knew that(insert name of victim)was a law-enforcement officer[2]acting in the performance of (his/her) duties or while in uniform or exhibiting evidence of (his/her) authority;[3]or

4b.that the defendant knew that(insert name of victim)was a law-enforcement officer[4]and purposely committed the act against (him/her) because of (him/her) status as a law-enforcement officer.

The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant negligently caused bodily injury to(insert name of victim).

A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense, such as the infliction of bodily injury, whenhe/sheshould be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result fromhis/herconduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actors failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of the actors conduct and the circumstances known to the actor, involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actors situation.

Negligence is a condition of the mind that cannot be seen and that can often be determined only from inferences from conduct, words or acts. It is not necessary for the State to produce a witness to testify that the defendant stated thathe/sheacted with a particular state of mind. It is within your power to find that proof of negligence has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences that may arise from the nature of the acts and circumstances surrounding the conduct in question.

For you to find that the defendant caused bodily injury to(insert name of victim), the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt thathe/shewould not have been injured but for the defendants conduct.[6]

The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant used a deadly weapon to cause bodily injury to(insert name of victim).

A deadly weapon is any firearm or other weapon, device, instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which in the manner it is used or is intended to be used, is known to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury, or which in the manner it is fashioned would lead the victim reasonably to believe it to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.[7]

The third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that(insert name of victim)was a law-enforcement officer.

A law-enforcement officer is any person who is employed as a permanent full-time member of any State, county or municipal law-enforcement agency, department or division of those governments and who is statutorily empowered to act for the detection, investigation, arrest, conviction, detention or rehabilitation of persons violating the criminal laws of this state.[8]

The fourth element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is:

a.that the defendant knew that(insert name of victim)was a law-enforcement

officer acting in the performance of (his/her) duties or while in uniform or

exhibiting evidence of (his/her) authority; or

b.that the defendant knew that(insert name of victim)was a law-enforcement

officer and purposely committed the act against (him/her) because of (his/her)

status as a law-enforcement officer.

A person acts purposely with respect to the nature ofhis/herconduct or a result thereof if it is a persons conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result. A person acts purposely with respect to attendant circumstances if a person is aware of the existence of such circumstances or a person believes or hopes that they exist. One can be deemed to be acting purposely if one acts with design, with a purpose, with a particular object, if one really means to do whathe/shedoes.[9]

A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature ofhis/herconduct or the attendant circumstances if a person is aware thathis/herconduct is of that nature, or that such circumstances exist or a person is aware of a high probability of their existence. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result ofhis/herconduct if a person is aware that it is practically certain thathis/herconduct will cause such a result. One is said to act knowingly if one acts with knowledge, if one acts consciously, ifhe/shecomprehendshis/heracts.[10]

Like negligence, purpose and knowledge are conditions of the mind that cannot be seen and that can often be determined only from inferences from conduct, words or acts.

If you find that the State has proven every element beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty. If, however, the State has failed to prove any element beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must findhim/hernot guilty.

[1]This charge is drafted for the most common situation, where a defendant is charged with aggravated assault upon a law enforcement officer underN.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(5)(a). Other sections of the statute apply, with differing language, to aggravated assault upon paid and volunteer firemen; emergency first-aid and medical personnel; school board members, school administrators, teachers and other employees of a school board; employees of the Division of Youth and Family Services; the judiciary; and bus drivers and railroad employees.N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(5)(b) to (g). As always, the Model Charge must be adapted to fit the facts of each case.

Meet with an experienced
Attorney to handle your important legal needs.
Please call the office to schedule a confidential "in Office"
consultation.
Attorneys are not permitted to provide legal advice by email.

Kenneth
Vercammens Law office represents individuals charged with criminal,
drug offenses, and serious traffic violations throughout New
Jersey. Our office helps people with traffic/ municipal court
tickets including drivers charged with Driving While Intoxicated,
Refusal and Driving While Suspended.

Kenneth
Vercammen was the NJ State Bar Municipal Court Attorney of the
Year and past president of the Middlesex County Municipal Prosecutors
Association.

Criminal
and Motor vehicle violations can cost you. You will have to
pay fines in court or receive points on your drivers license.
An accumulation of too many points, or certain moving violations
may require you to pay expensive surcharges to the N.J. DMV
[Division of Motor Vehicles] or have your license suspended.
Dont give up! The Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen can provide
experienced attorney representation for criminal motor vehicle
violations.

When
your job or drivers license is in jeopardy or you are facing
thousands of dollars in fines, DMV surcharges and car insurance
increases, you need excellent legal representation. The least
expensive attorney is not always the answer. Schedule an appointment
if you need experienced legal representation in a traffic/municipal
court matter.

Contact the
Law Office of
Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.
at 732-572-0500
for an appointment.

The
Law Office cannot provide legal advice or answer legal questions over
the phone or by email. Please call the Law office and schedule a
confidential "in office" consultation.

Disclaimer
This web site is purely a
public resource of general New Jersey information (intended, but not
promised or guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up-to-date). It is
not intended be a source of legal advice, do not rely on information
at this site or others in place of the advice of competent counsel.
The Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen complies with the New Jersey Rules
of Professional Conduct. This web site is not sponsored or associated
with any particular linked entity unless specifically stated.
The existence of any particular link is simply intended to imply potential
interest to the reader, inclusion of a link should not be construed
as an endorsement.